1622 Mcadow Hills DriveRi6hlartd, WA 99352July 19,201 t

Defense Nuclear fticij\iti~sSnfel.y Board625 Indiaoa Avenue NW, Suite 700Was1lington, DC 20004~29QlAttn.: Andrew L. ThtbadelW

COMMENTS ON THE WTPCtlLTURAL ISSUES, RESPONSES. AND RECO~1ENDAl'IONS

Dear Mr. Thibadell,l.4

Icager1y read the June gtb letter fro~ lhe Defense Nuclep,rFnclUty Sufety Board (Boti,rcl~ DNFSB) to theSecr~tary of 6nergy cOllcerning the Safety Culturtt at the Waste Treatment und Immobilization Plnnt (WTP) undprovIde this response for inclusion in the p\'blic OQrnme!lts, The time is overdW!i for this issue to be addressedheadootl, lfthe WTP culture is to be substantintlylmprQved by DOE, Bechtel, nnd URS.thelllillaspects ofconcern must be, broughtclearly into the open and dil\cussed, 1beHeve ihnt people \vlto hrwe beon ther!), seen.and exp~rienced lite nchlnl functioning should provid~ this information, With over 42 years of-commercial nnd!lucien!' chen1ionl plrll1t e-,.:perience and nPh.D" along with havhlg worked nt Sllvffimah River and Hanford forover 22 years, 1feel qualified to provide input

1have prepared for and prwticlpated in mauy mee~ings with their staff. Deputy Secretary Ponemtm"s June12response typrfies the l).ttitud~ that plagues the Department or Energy (DOB).culture. Dr. Chu's June 301l~ n:plyincludes actions taken mtiny times befotens well as no nppnrEmlmisimderstandlng of the issues. The Bonra's20l1~1 lettel' recommended that control be lnkeil at the highest level to direot, track,lind vnJidnte the specificcorrective actions, however. on Ju1y 1\ It was publicly announced that the fo\low~up responsibility hnd beendelegated to Mr. Pcmemnn. This should l'tl.ise tmmedia.te concerosnbout the Secretary's commitment. l'."HIc~mment further on hoth DOE responses Inter.

Based on my experience 1provlda the issues listed below nml challenge DOE to respond with new, specificncliQI11110 address each ofthe 23 issues. I ask COllsress to review lind imptem~nt the 14 recommendationsoutlined ~t the end ofthis letter, DOE responses should be scrutinized cnrefully to ensure tlley nre sinc:erelyaddressing the hlllU~!i find 110t repeating pa.st actions.

The negative oultural environment has hampered the pl'Osress on the WTP since technical issues were firstidentified. The Bechtel environment 1\8S retaliated and stifled those who have opposed theil' \flews. This hascontributed to ~he cost inoraase ofnearl)' $88 with potentinlly another $4--8B needed to get it opcrntlng,. Thestartup sohedule has gOlle fram 2008 to the latest proposal of 2022; In currellt plans, It slipped another 3 yearsttl tIm last 3 months and also furthors lowers the startup performance target. 1n light of our Nation '5 financialsituntion lind l'Ioods, we cannot nccept suoh poor project perforn'mnce, Of grenter conccrn, severnl majortechnical issues still exist and nobody CUll stand up today und aSSlIre us that the plant will opemte sufety,efficiently! nnd j'obustly meeting the 40 year design life,

1believe that a fundamenlal oonfllct of interest lies within DOE alld its contractors which Inhlblts 008 fromconductin$ their oversight responsibility. This connictl'esults from a lack of experienoed personnel within DOEand i!> f~H~led by the fact thut DOE [Inti Its oontmctol'S nre driven by the same motives ofschedule, cost, andmilestones. As ll. result safety/teclmicp.llefficiency h;sue~ take a buok sent to cost. The contractors focus onthese for files, bonuses. and future contracting \vork whiTe DOE personnel foclis on thoin for personal andpoHtical gllins. As a. result, if someone raises ntechnic-!ll issue, DOE find its contractor ban together to resist ll.The WTP efforts m'e tlOnfoUl\ded because the Fedeml Project D.lrector is actually a contractor employee. InWfP, the focus to obtailll'ibout $SM in aw(wd fe·es nnd 1m ndditional $50M from Congress dl'ov17 Bechtel, URS,and DOE to close M3 despite the existence orman)' technical issulNl.

COMMENTS ON T~_WTP CULTUllALJSSUES. RESPONSES AND RECOMM:€NPA'I'IONSJuly 15, 2011

DOE and their CO\ltrnctors. Bechtel and URS. need oversight. Sadly, ifthe BmU'd is not watching fhem, nobo~appeal'S to be watching. ,While OUl' Countr}' faces serious flnijnciallssues, lite cost growth, $[)Chedule dela)'s,unresolved teclmicallsnfety issues, and culhlrnl issues ofthis project indiollte that this is neither the project northe time to let DOE lInd the contractors conduct their business with millimnl oversight. the history ofwhnt willhllppen iftllis Is done Is cllp1Ur~d In many places (ex. AtomIc MWVBst, Miohnel DIAlltonio, 1993).

I sincerely hope thnt:

.. Th¢ Board wlll maintnin their scrutiny and effort to see thnt the right things are done by requesting awritten speolfio follow-up progrllm to I1ddl'eSS l;lnc:h Mthe 23 concerns expressed above. Ilnd t

" Congress will take Hction to see that the following recommendations are implemented.

The 14 major recolllinendations tire:

Provide increllffed oversight for DOE find the WTP contractors. The oversight responsibility shouldillelude Incrensed funding and enforcement authority

Conduct COllgressiollul heurings ttl invesl1gate the cost, schedule, lech difficulties, misrepresentation ofinformation. and oC(H,trately define the end points.

Comlucl uGAO audit of expeliditures,schedule .ll:fowth Q.tid other issues,Inves!1gnte utld review the alleged closed Er-RT issull.:;.Concll!cL an independent tecl1l1iCfil revie.w team with an Indepelldent, new team.COl1dtlctan il1dep~nd(Jn.t cultural revhw-I with all independent tcam l.ll\d involve the appropriate parties,Address the oultural issues so this plnnt nnd future Hanft/I'd projects proceed in an llLmosphere of opellne:;s

rind with a desire to meet 01' exoeed nil obJeotives. .Since scale Up. snmpling, pump-out. PJM contrbl, level control were not demollslrnt~d In the M3ptogrtim,

Bechtel/URS should reWrn the fee thnt was awarded to them for the alleged closure ofM3 lind otherunl1nished EFRT iS,sues,

Sorutlnize My InerellllC In ftmdln~ for the WTP to ensure It Is not being used to cover OVerruns nnduhidden" teohnio~l issues.

Review cmd require DOE to fiCCOllllt- fbI' inappropriate performance payments, reducing WTP perfonnnncespeoificntions, find supporting a largor cost and delliyed sohedule.

Investigate whnt role Mr. Knutson pln)"ed in my lennirlalioll from the WTP Elnd HIke appropriate correctiveaction.

Replace the appropriate uppel' WTP manngement and institULe training for the new lind remainingrnnnngement.

Revise the WTP contract so timt Bechtel is IlO longer the design nuthority and design agency. Assign nilIndepenclent group to be the process design authority.

StnffDOE nnd the WTPt with mnnngCl'l'lent who have the approprlnte bilckground and trnlnlng,Ellsure thllt the top DOE monagert Dr, eh\! or the next Secretary of Encrgy! takes personnlownership

for the cultural problems nnd docs not dlllegate them to others.

In closing, the recl'lnt events find their timing need to be oarefully reviewed: the Board conduols a yearlongintensive Investigation ofthe WTP safcl)1 Qulture; they issued it letter of recommendation on June 28 addressingthe culturAl issue$; lIfter only two days, on June :30, DOE responds with nUst proposed actions; and on July Slh,

Dr, Triay steps aside. We have seen both of these events before, Many times DOE has respondl,'ld with the$ll.me nations executed by the same people, In 2003, !liter issues surrounding lnlldequute l1uclellf druminspections at the WIPP Paclllty, Dr. Tria)' stePPlld a.')!d~ litaLing she would start hOI' own privnte consu!tlllgcompany (www.ullgov.com/Officialrrr1nyJnes {PDF attached document #87}). She then took a statrposltlollill DOE and laler became EM-I. The cultural issues Lhat plague DOE is one of leadership which tl1e top position

2

COMJ.\i.IENTS ON THE WTP CULTURAL ISSUES, RESPONSES AND RECOMMENDATIONSJuly 15; 2011

in DOE mu~t address. But without l;mhan(:\ed oversight, the changes and improvements will not be made.Responsibility to make changes oannot be delegated to tho1,>e below th~ Secretary or history will repeat itself.With the billions of do11ars being spellt, l)ew actions with a new phIlosophy) or new people, are t'equired alongwith thal'911gh oversight.

Unlike many fucilitie$ where no operatfon means it il? safe~ it mt)st be recognized that the WTP is not one ofthliSe. DoIng nothing is not iJ. solution. The cultural and technical issues mUst be addressed SCl that the WTPoperates safely and efficiel),tly; by notop~rating a major safety and environmental iss\leexists as there is 53M ofhazardousnuolear Wliste left sitting ill 177 waste t~t1ks that have exceeded their design life and of which aboutOile third have leal<ed. the issues shown iIi attachment #1 I'epresent areas that neeQ specific follow-up andaction. The !lumbers (1-23}~s~oojated with the followIng issues l\re for convenience offuturt'l r~ferehce and donot represent aptioritization or level of importance. While anyone Item migM he debated,in totality the iSSllySand attachments destWibe aci-iltUre that should be a conCenl to anyone. The two attachep PDFs (attnchment #2al)d rittachrnent#3) oontain the supporting documentation,

Please contaot me ifyou would like to discuss any oft11e above topics or 11eed additional infOl'mfltion. Andagain, thank you for your time and effort to addre~s thiS. very ilnpotfant issue.

Sin.c~y, . ~~!lJ~/Y$/~Waltel'L. Tamosaitis, Ph.D., P.B.

Attachments:#1- Listing of13 1,J\.t1t\1l'al issues with documel'Itation referenced.

,. #2~ PDF of referenced doCtllTientation for issues #1 ,; #13#3- PDP of referenced documentation for issues #14 - #23 and attachment #87

Co: Sel1ator Cantwell cIa Amit.Ronen and Joel MerkelSen,ator Murray c/o Jamie Shimel(Senator Wyden cIa Dave Bericl~

Senator Frankell c/o JasOlI DaySenator Markey clo Michal FreedhoffRepresentative Inslee clo B.eth Osborl1eReptes€mtative Hastings clo l3rianne Miller'Representative Larsen c/o Pablo DuranRepresentative Reichelt clo Michelle TranquilliRepresentative Rodgers c/o Shaughnessy MurphyRepresentative Beutler cIa .Tordall EvicliRepresentative Dioks clo Peter Modaff'Representative McDermott clo Rita SoldanaRypresentative Smith cIa Puul HooverRepresentative Spier c/o Mike LarsenRepresentative Degette c/o Bl'endan DevineRepresentative Sutton c/o David BondSenate Armed ServiceS Committee p/o Madelyn CreedonHouse Energy and Commeroe C<;nnlTlittee clo Alah Slobodin and Peter SpenceJ, Richard Schapira - DNFSBT. Devine~GAlJ

3,

Attachment #ICOMMENTS ON T.»:n: WTP CULTURAL ISStmS.lmSPONSES AND Rl!:COMMENDA1'IONS

.. ~~~~~ . .

July 19.2011

I.. ~9tings,\,itllthe_ 6oardnnd/or Jloard Stoff: In mJ' expflrienCflj the DOE a.nd the \VTP ~ontroolorll

treat interaotions \vltb the ONFSB with contempt. The obJeotive Is to see how little can be conveyedWhile spinning the infonnntion in the mOll! posillve way. The attitude of Hloose lips sink ships" nnd "themore we $uy, the more It OM hurt us" prevIIUln any meeting with the Board or the Board stnff. That theBoard stniT' can even come close to doing theirjob$ with the "hide the ball'; approach taken by DOE andBeohteltURS h~ a credit to the quallty ofthe Bonrd staff. Rather than viewing the Board as on independentset Of eyes who cnn help, DOE and their contractors see the Bouid os the enemy. This attitude by DOEand BechtellURB towards the Board Clln be seel1 in the nttnclm-,enLs. Tlte uttuj:lhments contain derogfltor)'comments, show efforts to interfere with Board notionst and attempts to discredit the BOord.

Attachments-1: Olinger commcnts to the State ofWnshingtol1l'eglll'4ing the Board.2: Attempt by Chung to stop DNFSB 2009 recommendation letter.3: Russollsks DOE to get the Bonrd altminated from nreview session.4: Russo comment on what should "embarrass" the BOllrd,S: RUlls0 comments on the Board nbilltles and responsibilities.6: Russo snys that closing M3 on June 30.11 \\;Quld put the BMrd tn IIhigh gear" and that they 'Iced to

close M3 butt'keep the DNFSB from overrenoting". He also comments on DOE ond .$latesthnt!lthey (DOE) often do thingstlHit make 110 basic sense".

2. rr!essngc MauipnlatiQn- 'fhe manipulation of words and messnges by DOB und Beehtel/URS docs notstop with the Bmil'd. Congress receives the snme treatment. DOE and the contrllotors want to make suretheir words get to the npprop,·jnte congrcssiorml members so that they Udan't' come up with words of theirown!! which could influence contractor money,

Attachments-7: Attempts by Be.ohHllto influence oongressional wordingR: Bechtel lIttempts to influence St:\Illl.te Armed SelViC6S Committee staffer Ms. Creedon's wording

llnd the wording. in the House Appropl'lntions Bill.9: Bechtel says they should give Ms. Creedoli enough to snUs!)r her conoerns but no more !Iud also

give Ms. Creedon [l path forwnrd or she may find one 011 her own.10: Bechtel tries to control communications on the Hill after I wrote my June 16, 2010, leller to the

Bom-doII: Sel1ntor Murray\s office lind Jomie Shimek help Be{)htel with communications on the Hill

following my letter to the DNFSB,12: House plm~onnel ask repeatedly nbout the use oftile extra funding \VltIl regards to rnixing issues

and struotural analysis. Despite many questions, DOE $ays they use it fOI' equipmentpurchases so that they cnn contInue to move nhend.

13: Bechtel1obbyist) O. Owell, provides critioal comments about Dr~ TnJnosnitls despite noinvestigation or!nput. Lobbyist Owen describes Triay os frenetic and question!! ifsheshould have responsibility for spending $5B/yet"lr. Doug Clnpp says the HDNFSB looks likenn o.'lshole for opening an Investigatioll".

f4: Russo tells T,oiny thot the DNFSB 13.l115Ilag~ was rall10ved from HASC bill.IS: Despite extensive effOlis to get the extrn funding) top Bechtel 11llmagement Wlll1t Lo know whnt

they wllJ do with the cxtrn $SOM.

4

,t::0MMISNTS ON THE WTP CUl/fUltAu IS,€UE,£ RESPONSES AND RE~{;;QMMENDATIONa(continued)

3. Contl~ol1lng the Mes~Sllge Ilnd the Messliliger: The message cootrol uMmel> was on display at theOctober 201 0pUblic meeting through nlltbe Mtes passed from the Ildvi$ol'Y audience to the witnesses vinmanagement personnel, 'fhe obviQusness .of this was noted by Board members at Ule hearing. DOE nndoOlttrn.ctor mltn!~.!!ement were !'evie\ving and stlreenillg noms in a.n nttempt to contrql th~ narrative. Jtappears that after haul's ofprepatiltion Ulld a 100+ page written response to the Board's quesdo~ theystill felt aneed to control the responses. Where are the cQrner stones ofintegrit}') openne{lli, find truth inthe WTP nuclear culture? . .

Atta.chments·11$; The performance requirements for the mixing t~$U~ (M3) will be adjusted (do\'Jnw<trd) if

needed to closo Ul~ hmw:~ by JUne 30,2.0 lO. .11: Russo tells Knutson to be more ptlsitive abollt M3so that Congress does not kill the extra $50M18: Russo says Ponemull and KIlUl$Ch want hihl to hetpsell the Hili on the slory for more mQney.19: Olinger says to remove words going to the BOl\l'd that imply they are not ready.20: Olinger outlines severnl reductions ill process capacity tllot will be TIllide to make M3 work.21: March 81 2011 ; TriCily Herald nrtide on DOE Witness t~nlpt,lrlng

4. The Eye in theSk\;: The Board is viewed with such disd~in that the actions of some people lire c[\fefully\\'litched especially whml the Board Or Board staff aro on site. If sidebar or one-Oll-Olle discussiolls areheld between staffnUIDlbers find certain employees, mfl!li:lgullllmt Is imm~diately informed. 1exp!}rienQedthis us (l result om meethlg I had with a Board staffmclI1ber shortly before my termination. URSmanager, Bill Gay, i1um sought to find out why I ha.d this meeting by allking other contractor emplo)'ees.What does t!lis type ofmnllElgoment questioning telegraph to other employees?

5, The DOE EnmU!YIlIl Conccms ProcellS (ECfi~ Aftel' my tennlnntion from the WTP\ rimmedilltel)'Wetlt to the DOE ECP, My URS filllnagement (Vice President Leo Snln) told me u\VO do whateverBechtel says", 1did not go to Bechtel ll\anag0mellt. Afttll'll few discussions with the DOB ncppersonnel describin~ whnl happened and who was involved, the Rep management (M." Willian1 Tuylor)recommended 1look exterrudly for assistnnco since this situation appeared to have big irilplieations.Dr. Chu's response to combine Hanford Eef omacs seems to be driven more by Jl cost reduction motivefather than the desire for cultural improvement.

6, Nucllmr Culture PoUcyJn Wl'P,l In 2006 the DOE. Office of Health, Safety aod Security (HSS) fillditedthe WTP lind issued IJ, report calling fOr nnucleur cullure polley and prooedure, It WIlS not until rnld~20 10when the DNFSB public hearIng loomed in front of Bechtel/URS that they took nction. The need for thereport was cmphnsized in late Allgust Whal\ Bechtel held 1\ mannBement retreat at il. resort in Iduho. Afterthn~ as the issue date approached and cMllnents were coming in Hlowly. the top Bechtel Project mlirtoger,Mr. Russo, sent I'm emnil direotly to the URS manager co()rdinnting the policy telling him to move ahead,und to assume ('that no reply means agreement\!' Does it take un upcoming public meeting to gel follow­up action in a nuclear culture? Where was DOE in following up on tIleit' own 2006 r~vie\'li

Altitchments~

- 22: Russo tells Coyle to llS!illme uno fee,dback by COB today is agreement with the nction pltm'\~ 23: COV~I' page of WTP Nuclear Policy showing 20 IOdate.

5

COMMENTS ON THEWTPCJJkTURAL ISSUES, RESPONSES,ANORECOMMENDATIONS. .. . (continiled) ...

7. DOE,&ultlll'e AlJdlt: To assess the WTP nuclent' culture as jl, result of my July 16,20 t0, letter to th~

Board, DOE sent their Office of Health, Safety lind Security (HSS) to (londuct Ii review. The issue ofconcern with was the punitive nod retaliatory measures taken by BcchteVURS management agilinst thosewho miscd tecbnical 1$.$\Ies us. evidertced by my termination from the WTr. To my surpriseJ the lead ofthe HSS reviewt Ms. \Vorthingti:lll. stilled specifically thut the re.view would [Jot 1001< into this but ratherlook nt the oultUre surrounding it. In the Executlv~ Sunun~ry oftheir repod, the HSSst!lte thatBechtellURS hnd established the framework for n~trong lluclear safety culture, however, I'pockets ofconcern!! existed. These two points warrant t'urthel' comment.

First, if they looked at multiple subject areas and only one firen had (;oncertu~ oven.!I, In their view theframework may look good but imp!e01entution Is the key. Aculture llSSflssment Involves more thanInvestigating terminntions but, in fuct~ Uiey never examined this aspect. Second, the HSS stated thllt th~yintervjewecl about 250 people, How mility were interviewed is not lhe key factor ill nsurvey. Who werointerviewed is mor~ important. The major ractar that was missed b)' the HSS is the common denominatorfor these so-called "pookets of coneernn• These IlpQckets" were all people who challenged 01' disugreedwith Beohtel mf;ll1ugoment and Bechtel engineerinG. Specifio cases were ne\'er investigated. Alsolofconcern is the faot that the Executive Summnry ofthe HSS report does not adequately refleclthe. findingscontained In their report.

Other ravlew.s hove reported that approximately 95% ofthe employees gnve the safely and quality oulturea.t W't'P high marks. This warrants a factunll'cview ofthe employment numbers. The HSS stated theyinterviewed nbout 250 employees. At that time the WTP hnd about 2500 employees. Only about 50 were~utslde of Bechtel engineering ond dh;ectly Involved in teohnicul issue resolution. Let's double thisnumber to lOll. lhvery one Qfthese 100 employees expressed concel'11S1 It would amount io lass than S%of the total. "Vould the HSS st1l1 olnssify them as "pocketsH?

It also needs to be recognized thnt the m!\lority of conniet with Bechtel engineering o<:curred in the 2004­20 I0 period, Many employees left prior to the NSS Audit so for the DOE HSS to find any pockets todayshould ~learly l'tlise n fll190 orconcern. In fllctl ill tlw 2006 period, some groups had 311l\llnUal tumoverrateexceeding 30%, Sevortl\ employees who had concerns left the W'rP project by mid..201 0 for fcar ofreprisal. FOrmer employees, independent contractors, I1nd nfitionallabomtory personnel should also hnvebeen hlterviewed. Also, how many employees do they believe are going to express GOlJcerilS after theysee a senior matloger tennilluted from the WTP project the doy nf'tcr presenting a list ofabout SO safelyissues, tKd nilowed to go to his office, not nllowed to get his persot1Q1 bclongingsl not allowed to talk ttlanyone, escorted f!'om tho premises, nnd llssigncd to nbasement office with no menningful work?

BtH It is not a numbers game. Pocus must be On the issues and the oullure. It takes only one singleill.dividual with special knowledge Or tI dlfferont perspective ofa problem to remllin silent for 11 disaster toocour. How lllallY te.chniclli people were llWflre oftha O-ring failure potential in the splice shuttleChllllcngcr? Probably less than 10, Is it (tcceptable to DOE to say that since most NASA persont1~1 feltcomfortable rnislng issues! these" I0" were just tl pocket? 1s tt E1cc.eptnble to DOE 10 sny that since NASAmanagement felt schedule pressures j these U I0" should ba ignored? More recently, how maliy peoplewere fhmiliar with tha problems in the 81' Deepwater Horizon? Just u few. How muny spoke up?

As n final point, per Ms. Worthington, D/'. Trl£j~r took tho lead fat' the HSS review, Why did Dr, Triaytake responsibility for this review If Mr. Podonsl(y is the head HSS llHtnQger? After the review,Mr, POdOIlSk)1 told npemon extenwJ to the project that if (lven a single point of concern oxisted it WIIS badand had to b~ nddrellsed. What hflS Df,Triay done about the review in the.lnst nine months before movingon? How mClIIY concerned el11jJlo.Vil(;,~ does if fClkff to make apooket and !lOIt' mallY pookets doe,~ 11 taka.bafOl'e t!l(1 issue is lldcft'l/sscd?

6

£QMMENTS ON M WTP (~TURAL ISSUE§1 RJl;SPONSE§. AND RECOMMENDATIONS(continued)

Where is the written corr~Qtive plan outlining specific follow LIp ficlions ror .the HSS reyiew" Per the HSSreport there was more thun one pocket; what hal> been elolla about the pool~ets?

Altachment--24~ URS~Q000834; /tTllls will be no easy lenniniJ.tion'"Reft}rellce: Paper titled 'IMaintalnillg the Continuity of KnOWledge in n Major M\.Ilti~Deoade

Projt':ctn presented by Dl~. Tarnosaitis Ilt the 2007 AmericElIl Society of EngineeringMnnngemenl Annual Conference, This pnper rcsulted from infqrmlltion o.btained toformulate closure to the EPRT, Lnok of Continuit)' issue (P-l1).

8. )Vito Repr{!~ell1s EmploveeRi As s~!lled tlbovcj after my termlnRtlon from the WTP, DOE S(lnt in theirHSS to investigate the ·cuUure, The DOE Inspeotor Oeneml (10) aho stnrted nn investigation which wassupposed to lOOk into r~tnHEltion, As soon us the DOB 10 learned I had fil~d a olaim with the Departmentof Laborl the 10 immediately Slopped theil' hwestignliol1. Arr. /\ result, no one In DOE hns itwestigated theDOE or Ct;mtrilCtOl'l.lctions surrounding Illy terminallon or asked my any questions. 1have beenlrying toobtain the infonnntion from the curtailed 10 investigation tbr over nine months with no success, One yenrhns passed since the complaint was filred with the Department of Lflbol' wiU, l){) outcome, In fnct, Ihavehad only n. parlinl interview wUh them llnd muoh more informntion to convey. Neither Bechtel nor URShus provided a written reason for my termination from the WTP. SOl In the DOE nuclear culture, whorepresents thCl employees? And now Deputy Secretary Ponemen wants all the 'notes} files} etc. the Boardhas, What will he do wi!h the 1l\formll1iol17

Attuchment5~

25: Poneman. Triay, a,nd Knutson support Bechtel's decisIon to terrnhlnte me despite noinvestigation or discussions wlth liny personnel. Russo nlso states thnt nDOE cannot beseen ns lnvolvedll (in my terminutton from the WTP).

9. Indclll1ndcllfRevi@w TCllm$~ DOE and Bechtel formed I'IIl <'independent" review team, thoEnvironmental Managemenl Advisory Board (EMAB) to review DOS facility issues. The co-chuir is f\

retired Bechtel Senior Vice President und one of the members is a retired Bechlel Vioe President WhileDOE: will attest there is no cOllflict of interest, what Is the definition of the word ~tindependentn In theDOE ElllU WTP nuolear oulture?

AttachmQllts~

26: Draft announoement of the formlltion of the EMAB27: Russo says the)' will push for Bernie (Meyor) involvement28: Ogilive BUyS Trlay wm be happy to henr about Larry Papay29: Description of EMAB membership by Hanford Challenge

10. U!ssous Lcarned:.Prior to the WiP, the Boston Tunnel. the Big Dig, was touted by mllny as the sll\gl<~

biggest prQlcct in our Country. Despite not havilll! ohfllhlcal operations to contend with it WIlS sHill! verybig project. It went way over budget 11l1Ci took much longer than expeoted. Bechtel wlla 11 primecontmclor. There was t\ major technionl issue resulting in ndeath following startup (opening), What are .(he common faotOl's and oauses of Issll~s in that project oompared to the WTP? Anuclear culture blindson lessons learned. What WIlS, nnd enn b~l learned from a comparison?

Attachments~

30: 2006 atticle by n.R. 131l1{er which oppeared in the Chronicle31 ~ 2008 Ilrticle from Bechtel home page (abbrevlnted)

7

COMlVQjfNTS ON THE WTP CULTtrIUL ISSUES, RESPONSES. A~D RECOMMENDATIONS. (continued)

1I. IlQRMnllngeU!ent9 R{}le_~ The fllntel'ial obtained since my t!)rmlnatloll from the WTP In~iQatea t1wt theDOE J1cdernl Proj~ctDlreotorl Mr, Knutson, played a koy role In Ill)' termination, It waa confirmed tindertestimony that ~f,'. stllt6d (01' words to this effect) "he would not have II whistleblmvel' in the organiZlttion'\Yet he !ligned lln a.ffidavit saying he plaYed no role, URS management, Mr, Gay, state.d thnt Mr. KnutsonInitiated the action. Bven Bechtel manllgement p~rsonnel questioned Knuls<)nis invo]ven1eJ1t. Again,where does integrity unci honesty reside in tllQ WTP nuclear culture? Why hns DOE remained silent in theface of this evid@l1ce'l Where is the DOE Investigation into this not of retfilhrtion'l DOE actions nresupposed to M$UI'(! nhealthy safety culturel not undermine it.

Attnchmetlts·32: Knutson tells Russo to Heotor his cOl1venintionlll' with his mnnugernent and accelerate

personnel moves.33: (Jay stutes tlU!t Knutson Initiated my lemllnatiol1 from the WTP.34: Russo stalesl Uthe federal Project Direotor is llotgofng to respond to throats ofwhlst!e

blowing'l.35; Bechtelll1nnagement refers to Dr, Tamosaitis (IS nil "official won (Whistle blower).36: Russo stntes that tlDOB annit be seen fiS involved"ln my temilnation from the WTP and Bechtel

is lmhllppjl with URS 1hlmdlin~ ()fmy terl1linntion.

37: Pages 66~75 from Cam! Krumm, URS Human ReintiOM Manager, deposition.38: Russo tells Knutson he told URS to get me out ofhere ;2 weeks ago.39: Olinger offers help to Russo to help with the Board (after Dr, Tumosnitis' termination from the

the WTP) and despite the concerns oftWQ senior Ph.D/s" DOE and Bechtel drive aheadwith M3 closure.

40: Walker Sl1)'S Trlay and Knutson feci they can mllnnge the DNFSB ufter my June letter.tIl: Bechtel publlo "elations personnel ask if it Is normal for a DOE manager to be involved in

pel'sonnel movements.42: Oay July 23 en1l1i1 to Wright sa)llng to forget about temp tlSsignment since I wrote a loticr to

the DNPSB.

Rcference~

Affidavit in DOL suit: Knut$otl signed aftidavil stating- no involvemellt in Dr. Tumosallis'temlinatlQn from the WTP (www,shericlanlnwflrm.oom)

12. gup1ic~Con.llllitmlll1ts: In the public meeting Oil Octobel' 7, 20 I0, Mr. Russo, the Bechtel manager, statedthat Mr. Knutson, the f"ederul Project Director, and he had mude ncommitment several weeks carlier to donlarge scnle success oriented mixing demonstrntlon test by mld-2012 (page 142 of the public meetingtestimony), He also said the draft plan having cot1s~nsus on all but the slmulant(s) would be available inthree to four months, Le,., by March 2011 (page 221). It is now almost 9 months later and basic detailslike fUllotiono.l requirements, the llize(s) oftbe test, numbel' oftests, sampling, pumpout, cost, funding, testlocaHon ale. have not been established (pnge 172), On pnge 166 Mr. Russo stOICS that the JllI"ge scnletesting will be done bcFore the vessels fire installed. But now discussions nre actively underway tocompletely assemble the v0ssols, Ie, install the heads nnd close them u , I'ior to the Im'lc soale testill ,This will TO uire mu'or rework iftl1c tests are not successful.

the POE nuclear oulture allow for such misrepresentation?

Attachmonts -43: WTP communication dnted Deoember 7. 2010

8

pOMMENTS ON THE WTP CDLTlIRALlS$UES, RESPONSES ANDRECOMMENDATlONS(continued)

13. J1l'tlDljd~jiQflt.. When does the drive to gel support go too far and become intimlda.tit;m and veiled thr~!lts

(loss of business, employment, etc), Jl appenrs thut weeks before M3 WliS $uppose9 to close, DOE HQwanted to have suppql't fr91n scveral1hird party reviewers to Sllpport for nM:hvbile paper $sessmcntbeing prepllred by 8eohtellURS. Support from PNNL was ofspeolal inler~st. The attached emalls,esp~cinlly those relntln~ to PNNJ.., raise questions as to whether this line 'VflS orossed. This pressure comefrom the upper levels QfBechtel mnnugemQnt and extended to the CEO of Battelle and others.

Attaohments-45: Three Chung emnil.s asking Russo has gotten PNNL blly~ln on M3 white paper.46: Olinger wants to know what Russo has dona to get l!nssuranceI1.47: Rus.so states thnt PNNL better "damn \vell be on board" nftel' the money that was spe.ot thel'e.48: Russo stutes thnt they have to culibrate Wadsworth on standing behind their (Pl\\NUs) work.49: Wadsworth gets calibroted by Bechtel. .50: Olinger asks thai sUppOit fro'm C}l\lC!\ Spenc:.er pnd Paul Rutland be ensured.51: Rnsso says Spenoer nnd Rutlnnd support confirmed, Olingersnys Sain and Fonteberry cnn help

sell the Botlrd.52: Olinger wnnls SRNL concurrence. Russo says that SRNL wUlagr~c. with their position since

Deason was on hIs tcum at l..LNL.53: R~ls!!o tell:> Ashley to send people to SRNL to help get them itl alignment,54: DOE supports M3 .closure desp[t~ eoncerns.by Dr. AI~xnnder and Gilbert.55: Sain and Russo agree that regarding \1. technicnl issue they Uneed to kill this BS nowH

•

56: Russo desoribes a teohnionl question AS Hfishing for issuesn•

57: Retaliat10n concerns expressed by PNNL personnel.

14. Extern;dElowsl1eetRI.\\'icw Tcmtt (EFRT) Issue UnClo.'lurlil? - Related to leadership integrity and'ltruth in reponing" is the question of how mallY orthe 28 BFRT issues are really closed? EFRT issueclosure to DOB nnd Bcchtel/URS became un adminlstl'lltive gume, To d\c credit of the HSS, theyIdentified this lUi nconcern 111 their lludit and commented that closure does not mean closure by normaldefinitions. Tbey further state that this makes it extremely hard fOl' stukellolders to undorstand the status,In addition, the HSS stntes thnt while severnl technical issues will be addressed later, th~ M3 closul'elllsonppeared to be In cc:mflictwith the prqject policies. In sorne casas a plnn for the plan was provided to ,allow closure (MS). In othel'cnses, the issue was never fully resolved between conc~med parties (MI), Inother issues WTP relies all futUl'e actions to provide olosure (M4). In othel' issueSI te~hnlc.al concerns !itillexist (M2). M3 closure should hnve reqUired that the potentIal for criticmljties and trapped exploslve gasbe deemed safe as welll1s sampling, vessel pump out, level control, PJM operation, and viseosily controlhe demonstl'Bted to be adequate nnd safe. Clenr!)', despite Bechtel/URS being paid for clositlg issues.closure cloos not menll technIcal issues nre ndequtltely addressed.

AttnchIIIent:58: HSS Report page 38 and 39

15. Whllt Exnumle is Set by the WTF? MallY people look to the WTP to clelllollstrote our Nation's ability toreenter the nuolear eta by building II complex nuclear plunt on schedule nnd cost that slprlups o.nd operatesafolyand effioiently, In light of the mfljol' cost inoreasos and schedule ohanges cited a.bove, have westepped backwtU"ds? In lightofotlfNntion's bUdgetary sit~lotion, OUr government cunnot buil outc;ompanles who display such difficulties. Has DOE's and the contractor's perfommnce ill the WTP hurlour Country's ability to enter the nuolear renaissance should we choose to do so? Whnt are the incentivesfor DRS to ohallenge the Bechtel design? Nl;me. If they chuHenge It, It will impnct their future businesspnrtIlerjrt~. lfthe)' hold their tongw,\ they Clln gell110re money later to fix Bechtel's problems. Whyshould they voice nconcern? Who is responsible for pl'ovlding the oversight to control this and preventabuse of oUr taxpayer funding?

9

COMMENTS ON TEmyvTP ClJLTORAL ISSUES, RESPONSES, ANDRECOMMJjiNDATI0NS(oontlnued) .

16, :wJ'Il emIt lind Schudulc: The original WTP estimate \Va.r; ubout $4.68. It Is now $12~3B. The otiginnlstartUp dllte WllS 2008, then 2019, and most recently 2022 is being proposed, As nlarming as the increasedcost, having to spend another $4-8'8 to obtain full startup it i~ equally troublesome, espeoially when it mightfiot operate safely, efficiently, or even at nil, This $4-8B e.stimute includes pretrcatmellt facilities In the tnnkfann, the remnlildor aftile LAW vltdflcation c£\p£loity, canister storage, effiu~nt treatment facility upgradesor replaoement, nnd other itellls. Are there not "Truth in Spendtnl!" laws in a nuclear cullure? What istodfty's projected total oost to get it fully st~rted up? What is the expected annual operating cost? What isthe ~xpectcd operating effioielloy and what is tbe expected mission length? What ifthe mission exce.;id$ 40)'(HlIS which in nlllikellhood it will? ThQ plant has It 40 )'0'RI' design Iife.- what will happen then ¢speciallyoonsidering that much otthe equipment cannot be inspected?

Mr. Knutson atnted at the public meeting (page 225) for the first tllnG that "fol' the VQSt mujorlf)/ of WIlSte thePJM systems will work just I1hli\ On page 229 he states "he believes that there i!1 11 large fmction of wastethnt needs to be treated, ..and the design of the WT? .....is not contl'over~lnPl (fol'treatment), 'thesestatements have now morphed into the smtement tbj:\t 70% of the 53M gallons Can be n-eoted witholltp(oblems. Ollt ofSSM gallons Qfwnate in th~ Hanford tflllkfllfm, fill' less than 100 gllllons hos beenIlnnlyzed. What does Mr. Knutson base his statelllents Qn? Recent I\nlll~sis ilidi(,}lItes pro\;l!erns with thefiller loop pumps tlud piping. Most ufthe waste must undcrgo aluri1il1t1m llnd chromium removr!.l and thusbe filtered. Wheri;l wlllBue flushes nnd vossel pump outs be sent and how wm tMs imp!lct saFe operiltionsand throughput? In llddltlol}, pretreatment fncililies are now being proposed for the tankfnrm. Can Mr.KnutsQIl explain why ifprelreatment process issues exist in the WT?, \vhy will they dhmppeur in thetankfann?

In addition. DOE and Bechtel are now proposing th~ 2020 Vision with the responsibility and cost fpr startupgoing to 0. new Beohtel/URS group. Where does the stllrtup money included in the WiP projecl go ifresponslb1Uty is moved? How muoh more money is l1e~ded to 5tl1lt up the WTP? At one point .Bechtel/URS were plunning to startup lind operate the plnnt without HAMre operntol'S, Who do they planto use to opemte the plant? The tnnkfnrm conhllct expires in 2018. Why is openltlon of WiP automaticallybeing given to dltsilnaw" group without cOl1lpetitive bids?

Attachment-- 59: tlw $12.3 Billion dollar cost is il\ jeopftl~dy,

60: Aprill?, 2011, nrticleill TrtCity Herolcl about extm needed WTP facilities.61: Need fut another wllste tank to do l\ double decant is qllc!\tioned.62: Eninil on blending Facility addltiol1 is discussed.63: Russo suys that moving scope to the tankfaml can save WTP money. Docs money go along

with the scope thut is moved? How much more will it cost lfit is In the tunkfarlll'? .

17. Mnl1ngemant KUQwludgc amI Tut'novcn Aquality culture requires knowledge lind continuity toll11derstaod and proparly address the Issues. Degrees, titles, und disciplines studied by themselves do notrepresent true kIlowledge or the ability to do nJob. 00 the other hand, 0 fOlll1dntion must exist in order formanagers to make sound decisions, In addition, the WTP is nchemical plunt. In the BeehleIJURS/DOEorganization chain, from the top lTI11tlagel'nent up lH1d the WTP chiefengineer lip through the Secretary ofEnergy, there is not one persoll with a chemical engineering degl'e-e, To my knOWledge, 110t one person hasworked in lind operated large chemicni plants. The orgnni71ltl0I1l'11 decision chflin is/was comprised ofpolitienl science nH~jOI'S, lawyers, civil engineers, chemists, and physicists. This is n,gi 10 5.[1)1 that thesepeople are not competellt but mther to SIlY thnt cxpcrionce and understanding of the issuos Is needed, Thisfactor combined with munascment turnover (Bechtel has hlld five Project managers in nine years) impactscontinuity and good decision making in projects, especially long duration projects. Note: Mr. Hul~engn,ChE Montana StIlte, WflS I'l:cently nssigned to Dr. Triuy's. former pOJ;ltion, He 111s.0 hils. direct linkuge to theLu.wrenc~ Livermore National Lnbomtory slmiluJ' to l{usso, Snmuolson, Knutson, and Dcnson.

10

CQMJ'y1ENfS ON TR~ WTP l;;PLJ1!RAL lSSUES. RESPONSES~ AND RECQ~NDATrONS(continued)

1.8. M3 Closure (molletary): An all or nothing fee was assooiated with M3 !jlosing by Junc30tl\ Stated

another way. for Eechtel{URS, 80% ofthc total ($6M) feel about $SM Wllil nssociatcd with M3 closure.The TPA milestOne was also associated with the June30 date and the first milestone (December 31 1 2(09)had already been missed, Those whQ signed the TPA, whioh includes Sccrcmry Chu, did not. wanl to missonothOI'date. In addition, Bechtel was pushing Congress to get another $50M in 20 I0 nnd future years.While all companies are in business to make money. ,;,rhen the push fOl' profits outweighs finfety and logic,it is time to examine what is. being done; espeoinlly with thtl imporllUlce of the WTP.

Attnchments~

64: Russo makes publio comments. in March that M3 will close by June 30lllj 20 I0,

65: EmllilstatIng that 80% offee(about $5M) is direotly tied to M3 closltr,e by June 30th,66: Russo says he would ruther win the fee by .chn.nging the rules than testing.67: Russo says fee is in play in a big wuy in M3 clOSllre.

k 68~ Russo s,;ys the $SOM is in pIny with M3 closure.69: Russo tells DOE that not closing M3 will kill momentum and the ($50M) extra. fundingnnd

he "\till personally raise "bloody hell".10: Bechtellt1lmagement is expresses concern about winning the fee.71: Bechtel manag~n1l;lnt is concerned abollt who the cost incl'ease Is nssocinted with and pllshes

for REA (request for' equitable adjustments) so that responsibility for the work isassociated with DOB.

72: Bcchtcllllanagement wants to ensure tl1a extra $SOM is protected.

19. M3 Closurll (J~<:hnicnn: M3 was declared olosC$d based Oll the submitt"ll ofpnperwork 011 Jurt(l 30111 forwhich Bechtcil/URS obtnined nearly lGSM, TQ~ay mllll)' IUlxing issues still rl;lmail1lmd~monstrnted nndopen inoluding sampling, modeling, PUIl1Pllut. and PJM controls. The air supply and exhaust system haveissues. Erosion is stili a concern, Mnjoreoncel1ls exist with the ability ofthe filter pumps to maintain thel1eeded flowrates. The operating temperatlire is being reducc4 so throughput is further 1Il'fectad. Tho WTrhas a 40 year design life. It must operate safely and effiolcmtly and remove the 53M of nuclear waste fromthe 177 tanks as. quickly as possible berore an environmental catastrophe oceul's. World renowned mixingOO!1sultonts offered muny comments hut DOE sHIl chose to approve closure and pay Bechtel the fee. Howdoes a quality culture justify that aotion'l

AUnohnnmts:73: Dr. Etchalls states that (101'. Cnlabrese (CRESP) does not Iik~ anything he hilS seenl/.

CRESP is advj~ory group to DOE, not BechtellURS. CRESfJ lltands for the Consortium forRiskEvaluation with Sbrkeholcler Participation. CRESP receives enr..mnrked funding.

74: Dr. Picke)' states that Dr. Calabrese ngrees that the way Bechtel and DOB are using the(soaling) exponent Is \~ust so the results look good",

75: Dr, Dickey states that use of n, 18 exponent would be considered by him to be 'lcrlmillaUynegligi;mtli with respect to tlle design of a nuclear wllste processil1B plant".

76: Dr. Dickey stales Htlle \vay (Bechtel) engineering is using the ,18 scale-down is a bit ofHsmokemirrors'!' .

77: Dr, Dickey sa>'s fI .33 scaling exponoitt is the best faclol" (to use).78: Por Dr. DIckey, Dr. Calabrese's scaling exponent W!lS ,9 (not .18).79: Dl" Sutter, bOE Consu\(unt, expresses concerns about M3 clo~mre.

80; Conclusion ofCRESP report appears to b~ confusing.81: BechtelfURS accept CRESP based 01.\ first 11 words of finnl sentence.82: Dr. Dickey susgasts hU'ge SCllie testing options ill rebrumy, 2011.83: Dr. EtcheIls offers tholl,glM In February, 201 t, on whot work needs to be done to really resolve

the mixing issues ami oIose M3.84: Tr;:<\hnicnJ concerns raised by PNN L(Vulnerability lett~r).84: The feasibllity of adding n lweI pumpout line is questioned.

11

COMMENTS ON THE WTP.CULTURAL rSSU1r:S. RESPONSES; AND MCOMMENDAFflONS. - " (continued) ." . .

20. M$lnngement Act]onsr After my termination from the WTP lwng nssigned by DRS to sit In a basementoffioe with no meaningful work given. 1have now snt here for nlmost i'l. yenr. I hav~ not been invited toany l1!lfety Of information meetings nOl' have 1had any nwnningful discussions with anyone in URSmanngemelH. VRS managers have told Qther~ that tnlking to me or even being seen with m~ oan betroUblesome. What signal does tilts Sllnd to others? A few days ugo (June 30) I receivcd n call from th~

SaVl1tllluh River Site and wns asked to support one of their programs. So after almost Ii ~en:r~ there is nowork for me in the Hanford nr~a despite DRS being involved in three ml\ior contractS. P~r' the SRSll'lilnnger~ th~ major reason for SRS soUc!llng my help was that the URS Humullll.ellltlOI1ll Divisionm(mllger~ Mr. Hollon, lold the manager at SRS that (!l'I1y help woul~ be free".

21. ;Qesign Authority 'IS. DestguuAgc.Ilf.Y," A basic prob.lem with lhe WTP is illlhe contract mcohanism.Bechtel is both the. dr:lsigll authority (determines what needs to be done) nnd also tht} design ngeney(decides how it will be dOlle). This is analogous to "giving the rox tlit} hOIl house to guard". There me nociheclcs and balances. DOE has neither the resources nor the capability to provide the needed oversl~ht. Inaddition, the foems on short-term results includin~ CPl nnd SPI drh'c lIe~l' term performance. The mllntmis Illef there be no p,oblems on my watch" Ilnd "by the time the pl'oblems nppear, I will he long gone'"This contract conflict combined with the short-term viow And the Inck of manugemenl continuity is tllell111jor c.UUS6 of leohrticallSSlles, Cost overruns, and schedl,,de delnys. I wltnt to note that this attitude Isl'!0T chnrocteristic afall employees but ralhf;l[' permeates Bechtel, URS, nnd DOE lIl11.nngemenl. Thereare Uluny employees who sinc{lr~\)' WUHI, Ilnd tryt to do n good job,

22. Mr. PQuam;m's It'\'itlll" Rcquest: An item thn1 reflects the cultuml issuos within DOE is Mr. Ponemnnfsrequest to have all fil¢s and investigative information of the Board given to DOE for revi~w. CongresseSfubHsl\ed the DNFSB to review DOE actlonstllot vice versa. Mr. Ponemnn stlrely is fiwafeof'thal,POE lnwyers sut i11 some of the closed door subpoenued sessions held by the Board and tlley also havet'lther information, Where is the written path forward from the HSS audit of 9 months ~go? The HSSlUiI1\oger Mr. Podonsky Qaid ifjusl one person wns cOl1c~rnecl it was too oHm,Y. How many llpocketsll doDr, Chu ~nd Mr. Poneman require before action is taken?

23. DOE's Responso to 2011~H I find soverlll aspects of DOE's five pag.e response amaz.lng. Do Lhey reallythink pel'lple will show up at Htbwn·hnll" style meetings and publicly offer constructlve comments? Also.nowhere in their proposed actions does there appeal' to be use of new, objective eyes. Why not involvecriticnl oversight groups? The DOE response appenrs to offer the same approach used many times of"using the same people to do the same thing ill the same way with the hope or getting a different nnswer".Mtlybe DOE is Just paying tor the answer they wnnt. Maybe this is why the wrp facility will cost nearly$208 and toke T4 years longer to get operating, jf it fllns nt all. By mOllt accounting, the WTP is thefourth attempt by DOB to eliminate the looming safet)' issu~ ofthc 53 Mgallons ofstored wllste; this tlmeIt Il1ust be mnde to run snfely ilnd efficiently.

Attachmel1 ts~

• 86: B.l<.. Rno's June 9, 201T f lelter titled hEthics, Complinnce with Regula.tory Agencies,Technical Competenoe, Ul\d COercion I to muny WTP project pnrsonnel and others includingDr. Chu. FirM page ollly,

12